The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1887-12-16
KANSAS PROHIBITION.

The United States Supreme Court Sus.
taIns the COnatituti0nality Of the Kna-
saa PrOhibitory Law.
WASHINGTON, Dec. h-The Supreme
Court of the United States yesterday gave
q decision in the cases Of Jacob Mugler
against the State OF Kansas aud the State
against Ziebold. The decision of the lower
court was affirmed in the Augler cases and
reversed in the Ziebold case. The effect
is to declare valid the Prohibition law in
Kansas. The opinion was by Justice Har-
Ian, who said:
The general question In each case is whethe
the Prohibition statutes Of Kansas are IN con-
hict with that clause Of the Fourteenth amend
ment which provides that ''No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge The
privileges or immunities Of citizens Of the Uni
ted States nor shall any State deprive any per-
son of life, liberty or property without due pro
cess OF law
That legislation by q State prohibiting tho
manufacture within her limits OF into xicating
liquors, to be resold or bartered for general use
as o beverage. does not necessarily infringe
any right, privilege or immunity secured by
the Constitution Of the Unit ted States ID
made clear by the decisions OF this court,
rendered before and since the adoption OF
the Fourteenth amendment. 1t is. however.
contended that although the State may pro-
hibit the ma .ufacture Of intoxicating liquors
for sale or barter within her limits for general
use as a beverage. no Convention nor Legislature
has the right under our form Of Government
to prohibit any citizen from manufacturing for
his own use or for export or storage any arti-
Gle Of food or drink not endangering or aflect-
ing the rights OF Others The argument made
in support OF the first branch OF this PROPOSE
ton briefly stated is: That, in the implied
contracts between the State and the citi-
zen, certain rights are reserved by the latter
which are guaranteed by the constitutional
provisions for the protection Of life, liberty and
property against deprivation without due pro-
cess of law and with which the State can not
interfere: that among those rights Is that Of
manufacturing for ones own use Of either food
or drink: that, while according to the doctrines
Of the commune, the State may control the
tastes, appetites, habits. dress, food and drink
of the citizen, our system Of Government,
based upon the Individuality and intelligence
Of the people, does not claim to control him ex
cept as to his conduct to others leaving him the
sole judge as to all that only affects HIMSELF
1t will be observed that the proposition and
the argument made in support OF it equally
cOncede that the right to manufacture drink
for ones personal use is subject to the condi
ton that such manufacture does not endan
ger or affect the rights OF others. If such
manufacture does prejudicially affect the
u
lows from the very premises stated by cOun
sci that society has the power to protect
itself By legislation against the injurious con
sequences of that business.
But by whom or by what authority is it 10 be
determined whether the manufa ture of partic
ular articles of drink. either for general use OF
for the personal use of the maker, will injurious
~ affect the public. Power to determine such
questions. SO as to bind all, must exist some
olc, iofx -xvilI ba tIa Off l,o
few who, regarding only their own appe
tites or passions, may be willing &c
imperil the peace and security of the
many, provided they are permitted
to do as they please. Under our system that
power is lodged with the legislative branches
of the Government. 1t belongs to that depart
ment to exert what are known IS the police
powers OF the State. 1t must determine prinl
arily what measures are APPROPRIATE and need.
full for tn. protection Of .ne public morals, the
public health or the pubic safety.
AS the courts must obey the Constitution
rather than the w-making department of Gov
eminent, it must, upon its responsibility, de-
termine whether in any particular case these
limits have been passe'. The courts are not
bound by mere forms. nor are they to be nlisled
by mere pretenses. They arc ut liberty-in.
deed, are under q solemn duty-to look ut the
substance OF things whenever they enter upon
cended the limits of its authority. II. there.
fore. statute purporting to have been enacted
to protect the public health, the public morals
or the public safety. has no real or substantial
relation to those objects, or is a palpable inva
sion of rights secured by the fundamental law,
it is the duty Of the courts TO SO adjudge, and
thereby give effect to the Constitution.
Keeping in view these principles. rs govern
ing the relations with each other Of the Judicial.
and legislative departments of the Government,
it is difficult to perceive any ground for the jul
dietary to declare that the prohibition by Kan.
sas of the manufacture sale within her limits
of Intoxicating liquors for general use there as
a beverage is not fairly adapted to the end OF
protecting the community against the evils
which confessedly result from the excessive
use of ardent spirits. There is here no justin.
cation for holding that the State, under the
guise merely of police regulations. is aiming to
deprive the citizen OF his constitutional rights.
If, therefore, a State deems the absolute pro
hibition of the manufacture and sale within her
limits OF Intoxicating liquors for other thar
medical, scientific and manufacturing purposes,
to be necessary to the peace and security of So
ciety. the courts can not, without usurping leg
islative functions override the will OF the PEG
pie as thus expressed by their chosen repre-.
sentatives. 1t is u fundamental principle in our
institutions. Indispensable to the preservation
Of public liberty, that one Of the separate dc.
partmcnts Of Government shall not usurp pow.
ers committed by the Constitution to another
department
With reference to the assertion that the pro
hibitlon of the manufacture and sale of liquor